EB-1AMarketing, media, communicationsIndividualDecided 2016Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
AUG242016_01B2203
Leading or critical roleMetAwardsNot metJudgingNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A satellite television news producer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, published material, judging, scholarly articles, a leading role and contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the awards, media coverage, judging and contribution evidence insufficient and the aggregate record short of the required expertise. The decision's treatment of the scholarly articles and leading role criteria is internally inconsistent.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Leading or critical role · Introduction states the petitioner satisfies this criterion; no analysis of it appears in the condensed text.
What was missing
- Awards · Petitioner not shown to be credited recipient, and awards not shown nationally or internationally recognized.
- Judging · Mentoring, lectures and advising students do not amount to judging the work of others.
- Original contributions · Reference letters did not identify specific contributions or show influence on the field.
- Published material · Most material was not about the petitioner, and the interview was not shown to be in major media.
- Scholarly articles · Authored items were not shown to be scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications; the AAO's introductory statement that it was met conflicts with the analysis.
- Final merits · Evidence in the aggregate does not show the required level of expertise.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Leading or critical role | Met | Introduction states the petitioner satisfies this criterion; no analysis of it appears in the condensed text. |
 Awards | Not met | Petitioner not shown to be credited recipient, and awards not shown nationally or internationally recognized. |
 Judging | Not met | Mentoring, lectures and advising students do not amount to judging the work of others. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Reference letters did not identify specific contributions or show influence on the field. |
 Published material | Not met | Most material was not about the petitioner, and the interview was not shown to be in major media. |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Authored items were not shown to be scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications; the AAO's introductory statement that it was met conflicts with the analysis. |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence in the aggregate does not show the required level of expertise. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.